Indiana School District Ends Prayer Practice at Kindergarten Graduations Following Atheist Complaint

FRENCH LICK, Ind. — A school district in Indiana has agreed to no longer include prayer during its kindergarten graduation ceremonies after receiving a letter from a prominent professing atheist organization.

The Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) sent a letter last month to Tony Whitaker, the superintendent of Springs Valley Community Schools, upon receiving a complaint from a parent, who it did not identify.

The parent had advised that the May graduation ceremony for Springs Valley Elementary School students included a prayer by a five or six-year-old student.

“Including religious rituals, such as prayer, in school-sponsored functions shows school endorsement of religion, which violates the Establishment Clause to the U.S. Constitution,” FFRF attorney Ryan Jayne wrote.

The Establishment Clause reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

“School events must be secular to protect the freedom of conscience of all students,” Jayne asserted. “It is coercive and inappropriate for the district to have a student lead other students and their parents in a prayer.”

“This is especially egregious when the prayer is delivered to a captive group of impressionable school children as young as five years old,” he continued. “Parents, not public schools, are responsible for the religious or nonreligious upbringing of their children.”

On Sept. 12, Whitaker replied to FFRF to advise that prayer will no longer be a part of the graduation ceremony.

“Springs Valley School Corporation will eliminate from any future kindergarten graduation ceremonies the section on prayer and will not allow any prayer at the graduation,” he wrote in the brief two-sentence response.

FFRF says that it is pleased with the outcome of the matter.

“Why on earth were kindergartners being compelled to join in prayer?” said Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor in a statement. “We’re pleased that we played a key role in getting this deleterious practice ended.”

In 1828, just 52 years after the nation’s founding, Noah Webster, known as the Father of American Scholarship and Education, wrote, “In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government, ought to be instructed. … No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.”

Webster, a schoolmaster, wrote the quote in his preface to the nation’s first dictionary, which often cited Christianity and the Bible.

Become a Christian News Network Supporter...

Dear Reader, has ChristianNews.net been of benefit and a blessing to you? For many years now, the Lord has seen fit to use this small news outlet as a strong influential resource in keeping Christians informed on current events from a Biblical worldview. Striving to bring you the news without compromise and with Christ in focus, we press on despite recent changes in Facebook and Google's algorithms, which has limited our readership, and, as a result, has affected operational site revenue. If you have benefited from our news coverage, would you please prayerfully consider becoming a Christian News Network supporter by clicking here to make a one-time or monthly donation to help keep the truth widely and freely published and distributed?May Christ continue to be exalted through this work!

Commenting Guidelines: We welcome readers to comment on stories, but we will not tolerate remarks containing profanity, vulgarity, violence, blasphemy, all caps or any discourteous behavior. Thank you for your cooperation in maintaining a respectful public environment where readers can engage in reasonable discussion about matters affecting our nation and our world.Read More →

Adhering to the US Constitution is not “giving in to tyranny”. Move to Iran if you want to live in a theocracy.

The Skeptical Chymist

Bravo for the school district! Religious education is the responsibility of a child’s parents, not the government. This is America, where we are free from governmental religious indoctrination, not Iran.

Amos Moses

“where we are free from governmental religious indoctrination”

No …. you are not …. you just embrace the pagan secular form that is being foisted on everyone …… and while i will agree that it is the parents duty to raise their children …. to say the government is not imposing a worldview antithetical to christianity …. is absolutely wrong …….. it has no choice but to use a worldview …… it just comes down to what is that worldview going to be ….. you want to believe there are no consequences to a secular worldview …… you are wrong …… abandonment of God has consequences ….. and you only need to look at the news on a daily basis to get that …………… this country is coming unraveled as a result ….. and if you cannot see that …. blindness is the only possible reason …….. willful blindness ……….. NYC, St Cloud, NJ, and now Charlotte ….. all identifiable evidence that what secularists are promoting …… is not working …..

Rookheight

Rationalism may be a worldview that is antithetical to Christianity, but that doesn’t mean the government can’t promote it. The government cannot take a position for or against religion. That doesn’t mean it can’t embrace reality, even when reality conflicts with some religious beliefs.

And the fact that America is not a theocracy is not the cause of racial tension in this country, which you bizarrely seem to suggest. Governments that promote one particular religion are usually awful on civil rights issues, for obvious reasons.

Amos Moses

it is not “rationalism” ….. in fact …. it is everything BUT “rational” ………… “The government cannot take a position for or against religion” …… the government has no choice BUT to take a position ………. and it has chosen the irrational stance of secularism ….. that has nothing to do with reality …… as it is irrational ………… “America is not a theocracy” ….. sure it is ….. it is a pagan, satanic, secular one ….. you just choose to be blinded to that fact ………..

Spoken like a true zealot… “you’re either with us or you’re against us.” That’s a sad way to live your life, Amos. All you’re doing is making enemies out of your allies.

Amos Moses

at least you recognize what you are ……. a zealot ……….. FYI ….. it is the only way to live ….. your way is compromise unto death ….. mine is to stand for something or fall for anything ……. my friends do not desert me …. if they desert me ……… not my friends …… who cares ……

You need to work on your reading comprehension, Amos. Here, I’ll throw in some more periods ………. maybe then …………….. you’ll understand ……………. you’re the zealot here …………… not I …………… you stand for nothing ……………. as you’ve fallen for the greatest con ……………. you have no friends ……………. in the end …………. you will be alone ……………. no god …………… no heaven …………. nothing.

More powerful than gamma rays
My grammar pays,
Like Carlos Sanatana plays
Black Magic Woman
So while you fuming, I’m consuming
Mango juice under Polaris,
You’re just embarrassed
Cause it’s your “Last Tango in Paris”
And even after all my logic and my theory,
I add a muh-fugga so you ignint zealots hear me.

Scientific fact. No evidence for his existence, only legends and hearsay, inadmissible ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Where? Show me the proof… Where is it? No one seems to have any… how is my position irrational? You’re the one believing fairytales based on nothing, no evidence, total conjecture and superstition.

Amos Moses

if your eyes are open you can see the proof….. and you are now proving by your statements that you deny any evidence… it is not up to me to prove it to you… it is for you to seek it but you refuse to do so …. your eyes and mind are closed
….

if your eyes are open then everything you see is the evidence….. so if you are intent on denying what is before you every second of every day …. what is it i am expected to show you…. you deny what you have already been shown…..

I deny nothing, as nothing has been shown to me. The function of eyes is perfectly well explained by evolution by means of natural selection. You’d do well to actually read up on the science that you’re flippantly denying.

“…. what is it i am expected to show you ….”
That’s up to you to figure out, Amos. Otherwise, face it, your god is a lie.

Amos Moses

“The function of eyes is perfectly well explained by evolution by means of natural selection.”

mmmmm …. and if that is true …. that comes from where …… i have a 20 year medical career …. got plenty of science …… has nothing to do with your denial of the evidence presented to you on a daily basis …. it is your rejection of God that keeps the truth from you …. you think you see ….. you deny part of the evidence ….. and then you come to a faulty conclusion as to what it means …… because your observations of the evidence are faulty ….

You are spouting nonsense. Maybe instead of holding down the period button you should re-read what you typed and delete it when it doesn’t make any sense, rather than forging ahead.

Amos Moses

……………………………………….. no ……………………………… and that is just ad hominem ……………………………………. as you have nothing with which to refute it ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

But it’s OK to use the public school system to Indoctrinate children into liberal Ideology, revisionist history, political correctness, etc as long as it is not something you personally protest about right? I.E. Religion.

Liberal Ideology and revisionist history go hand in hand. Like redefining liberty to mean freedom from moral restraints instead of what the founders defined it as in Freedom from government interference. Or re-defining clauses in the US Constitution to mean other than what they actually meant. That’s only one example. If you want more go research it yourself!

“If you want more go research it yourself!”
No, you made the claim, back it up. I’m not going to do your work for you. If you want to convince people that children are being indoctrinated into “liberal ideology” or that public schools are engaging in revisionist history, then post some evidence. But you don’t have any, so you won’t… because it’s not real.

Craig Reynolds

“Freedom from government interference. ” OK – so what’s your take on the functions of the EPA? the FDA?

Rookheight

Religion is singled out for special treatment by the First Amendment. Comparing government promotion of religion with government promotion of non-religious ideologies misses the point completely.

meamsane

Wrong! The First Amendment does not single out religion as special treatment. Your Ignorance is showing.
The 1st Amendment gives no rights. It is a restriction in areas that the CONGRESS cannot interfere in and make laws on.
Religion, the free exercise thereof, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom to peaceably assemble. This does not apply to the states.

Rookheight

The first ten words of the Bill of Rights give no rights? You might want to rethink that one.

As for Congress versus the states, have a look at the 14th Amendment and Google “incorporation doctrine.” Maybe you’ll learn something.

Even if you were right about that, which you’re not, the First Amendment prohibits the government from “respecting an establishment of religion.” That singles out religion for special treatment compared with non-religious ideologies.

meamsane

I don’t need to re-think it. I already said that the 1st amendment restricts Congress from making laws regarding 5 areas including religion.

The Incorporation doctrine is a bogus legal theory by activist judges. History shows just how the SC has abused the very meaning of it’s clauses (the 14th Amendment) and twists it out of historical proportions so that they can rule on things the US Constitution gives them no authority to rule on, like marriage, homosexuality, abortion, etc etc.

The SC also re-defined the Establishment clause to apply to the states in 1962 Engel vs. Vitale even though it only applied to Congress and there was no change to the Constitution by the Amendment process which is given in the Constitution itself. Read the majority opinion in the case. They even admit that there opinion is not according to the historical definition of an “Establishment of religion”. The SC has no authority to change the meaning of clauses in the US Constitution by legal opinion nor can they make law.

You have no clue as to what you are talking about.

Rookheight

If you write off all jurisprudence you disagree with as “activist judges,” you are just stomping your feet and wishing laws weren’t the way they are. But then again, that’s all your argument amounts to anyway.

I am very familiar with Engel v. Vitale and it’s a good example of seeing past the words of the Bill of Rights and getting to the heart of what they meant, in the context of how far we’ve come as a society since the 18th century. Jefferson and Madison made very clear that the purpose of the so-called Establishment Clause went far beyond literally establishing an official government religion.

You are just regurgitating tired arguments that no jurists make, because they are bad arguments. Even Christian-nut lawyers like those at Liberty Institute and ACLJ know better than to go down the path you are clinging to, because they will get laughed out of court.

It’s also funny that no one makes the same “internet lawyer” argument in opposition to incorporating the Second Amendment to the states, eh? Or if a state were to censor hate preachers, would they still say that the First Amendment only applies to Congress? Your lazy arguments won’t convince anyone who doesn’t already agree with you.

meamsane

Utter nonsense! The US Constitution has limited enumerated powers. All others were for the states. The states created the federal government. That’s why the 1st amendment says to Congress stay out of our business in regards to those rights that the states already possessed. Some of the several states had established religions before and even after the US Constitution was ratified.
It’s up to the people of the states to change something that they do not like within their territories. It’s not up to the federal government to change it for them by twisting meanings so that they can claim jurisdiction. If you enjoy the Indoctrination of beliefs you have I certainly can’t force upon you the falsehoods you seem to love!

Ambulance Chaser

So you’d be perfectly all right with, say, your state government banning the Bible?

Anyway, Rookheight is correct. It matters little whether the court rulings you hate so much are in line with the Founders’ wishes or not. They exist, and are law, and must be followed, no matter how much you stomp your foot, protest, and insist otherwise.

slatyb

The constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means. That’s their job. You are free to disagree, but your opinion doesn’t matter. Only nine people get a vote, and you aren’t one of them.

Craig Reynolds

” This does not apply to the states.” The Supreme Law of the Land does NOT apply to the States? How do you figure that one?

No, SCOTUS said nothing of atheism, they spoke of Secular Humanism, which is not the same thing. Yes, I know there are religions that do not have gods. However, atheism is not one of them, as it is not a religion, it’s the absence of religion.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

They actually used the word atheism. I gave an exact quote.

Ambulance Chaser

I honestly have no idea why were having this fool debate. Yes, for the purposes of individuals’ Free Exercise Clause rights, and the government’s Establishment Clause restrictions, atheism is a religion.

For the purposes of philosophy, logic, and theology, it’s not.

But so what? I don’t see what this debate accomplishes. Yes, I’m biased, because I’m neither a philosopher, a logician, or theologian. But still, seems like a hairsplitting waste of time to me.

No, you posted it once, then constantly referred me back to the original comment. Then you finally posted it a 2nd time, which I replied to and destroyed your nonsensical argument. Thanks for playing! 🙂

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

If you’re having trouble keeping up with the comments, just check your Disqus dashboard. It seems you are missing some.

You seem to have missed the point of the analogy. The absence of something is not an instance of that thing. A lack of belief in gods, which is all atheism means, is simply and obviously not a religion.

The Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment protects nonreligious citizens’ rights of conscience, so that atheist groups are entitled to the same protections as religious groups, but that doesn’t mean that “atheism is a religion.”

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

Actually, you made a poor analogy and I called you out on it. Logic isn’t an atheist’s strong suit.

The Constitution upholds religious freedom. The Founding Fathers prayed, had Bible verses written on government walls, etc. They never intended for prayer to be overruled. Atheists are pushing their religion down everyone else’s throats.

Ambulance Chaser

Freedom of religion has not gone anywhere and prayer has not been “overruled.” You can pray all day long if you want. You can go to church every day, or preach from a street corner to your heart’s content. You can even do that if you’re a mayor, judge, schoolteacher or the President.

The only time you can’t do it is when you are a representative of the government AND acting in that capacity. Is that really too great of a hardship for you?

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

Then why did Presidents since the inception of the US lead in public prayer?

And I’ve already shown that your claims on those rulings are completely out of context. Face it, you’re wrong.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

Indeed you did not. Someone else tried to – is that you under a different handle? – and was wrong. I’ve given specific quotes. Even a second ruling referred to the Supreme Court ruling that atheism is a religion, and quoted it as such. You can’t rewrite the dictionary. You are a religious extremist and want to push your religion down the throats of school children and all of society.

You’ve given specific quotes, yes, but out of context. When in context, you were shown to be wrong.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

That would mean you’re concluding the last judge who made the same ruling was taking quotes out of context since it was her basis for making the ruling that atheism is a religion. Exact quote. Clearly, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Stick to auditing. 🙂

Good luck with getting a citation from Guest. And when he does provide a citation, it turns out he almost always misinterpreted what’s written. He also posts fake quotes but then refuses to provide a primary source for the quotes. Very frustrating.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

That’s completely false, Guzz. Why make stuff up?

Rookheight

Actually it’s completely accurate. You say ridiculous things, a swarm of people call you out on it, and then you just repeat them again. You obviously don’t care about whether what you say is true.

Yes, you finally posted it in another thread, then were promptly shown to be wrong again, taking things out of context and misrepresenting quotes as part of decisions when they were obviously not, all with very little effort (my Google-Fu is stronger than yours). Thanks for playing! 🙂

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

You are incorrect. The decisions can be found in their entirety online. What you atheists need to do is try to change the ruling that atheism is a religion (even though it is one) because you can’t debate what the ruling was, since it’s very clear and has been since 1961.

Good, they’ll lead you right to my side with time. Enjoy your journey to non-belief… shed those shackles! 🙂

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

So you think that Pupin, Faraday, Newton, et al needed to “shed shackles”? Those “shackles” are what brought some of the greatest scientific discoveries to the world! Meanwhile, you’re still stuck in the dark ages. 🙂 Don’t be afraid of science. It’s your friend.

Actually, you’re not familiar with their works, as you’ve shown in your posts. You’re also not familiar with how most Creationists became Creationists – not by growing up in a religious home (atheist or otherwise), but by studying science at higher levels.

I’m still waiting for the science that you claim to have brought to this discussion, but I know you have none but won’t stop until you get the final word, Austin Guest. At this point, I’m just enjoying wasting your time and effort.

If you really knew science, you’d know that it’s compatible with the Bible. Atheism is not compatible with science and logic, which is why you have to deny them in order to be an atheist. I’m not into fables, I’m into truth.

uninvitedguest

Atheism is based in science and logic. Im not into talking snakes or those who “walk” on water. Im into the truth

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

Why don’t you show, from science, how atheism is based upon science and logic? Please cite scientific journals and sources.

uninvitedguest

Why dont you show us, from science, how snakes can talk and humans can walk on water and reanimate themselves?

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

Why are you changing the topic?

uninvitedguest

Im not. Asking the same of you and your book of fables

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

Sure you are. You claimed you have proof. You do not.

Science supports creation because of the law of cause and effect. There is also irrefutable proof of Intelligent Design. Add to that the recorded history of the Bible and its archaeological support and you have a solid foundation for belief.

Your turn.

uninvitedguest

Science debunks creation. 6000yo earth? Riight. There is zero proof of intelligent design or there would be reams of scientific research supporting it. Even fiction novels can refer to real world things. Where is the science to back humans walking on water, reanimation of a dead person, global flooding, boats that can hold 2 of every creature on earth to include dinosaurs, thanks for that one ken ham!

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

Show proof that science debunked Creation. It didn’t which is why Creation science is growing, and which is why modern greats like Dr. Damadian are Creation scientists. Intelligent design is supported by great philosophers, both living and those who are renowned from the past, as well as respected scientists. Again, you haven’t offered any scientific proof – none! Just personal opinion, which is not fact nor scientific evidence. As far as dinosaurs boarding the ark – how big (or small) do you think baby dinosaurs are? How many kinds of dinosaurs does it take to have the variation we are familiar with today? The answer – just 2 very small ones. That’s why Ham’s ark is so important – it shows that the ark was very feasible.

uninvitedguest

LMAO! so indoctrinated you are…..

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

How am I indoctrinated when I learned this from science? I wasn’t raised in the church, you know. I learned what I did from secular education.

uninvitedguest

No you didnt. Now youre lying at best. Very disingenuous.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

Uh, yes I did. I’m the only Christian in my family. I started university at the age of 14.

uninvitedguest

Sure you did.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

Don’t be bitter.

uninvitedguest

Not bitter, just dont believe you:) You’re a funny one. You post over and over how nobody but you, on these forums , knows anything about science and atheism and cant undrstand why nobody believes you. Hmmm……..

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

I’ve never said I’m the only one who knows about science on these forums. There are quite a few actual scientists who post here. Typically it’s atheists who fudge their credentials.

Rookheight

“very clear.” Except that it’s very clearly NOT. Which we’ve explained to you in some depth. Repeatedly.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

Then why can’t you produce quotes that suggest otherwise? 🙂

Cady555

Doesn’t matter. Even if atheism were a religion, a teacher saying nothing does not promote atheism. Nor Buddhism. Nor Christianity. Saying nothing gives each student the freedom to adhere to religious teaching learned at home.

Excellent point! I hadn’t thought of framing it that way… 🙂 Thanks, Cady!

Lexical Cannibal

Right? How is Christianity supposed to get in there with all that throat traffic! It just isn’t fair!

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

Hey, the Founding Fathers wanted Christianity to have free reign. Blame it on them, not Christianity. Your religion is getting mighty pushy, Lex.

Lexical Cannibal

Friendly update, I’m still not an atheist.

Nice historical revision/deflection combo, though.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

What are you? And hey, the Founding Fathers was very much on topic.

Lexical Cannibal

You know what? In all of your…let’s call them vollies, this is the first time you’ve ever actually asked, rather than presumed with intent to discredit. My inclination is to not answer because frankly it shouldn’t matter to the topic at hand plus, knowing you, you’ll just use it as more ammo for personal attacks. On the other hand, pro-social behaviour should be rewarded, so sure.

I’m a germanic pagan, otherwise known as “heathen.” We’re generally pretty chill towards other faiths, but also pretty “get out my yard.”

Also, asserting that the founding fathers intended something not reflected in the constitution is historical revisionism. Ignoring criticism of your faith’s behavior to discuss that historical revisionism is deflection.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

The Constitution upholds religious freedom.

And Lex, I don’t want to discredit anyone. Sorry if you feel that way.

Lexical Cannibal

You’ve never given me reason to believe that, but the sentiment is noted.

And, yes, the constitution does uphold religious freedom, but no freedom is unlimited and one of the places that particular freedom ends is when a religious exercise can be reasonably interpreted as government sponsorship. I’m sure there are plenty of Christians who would object in much the same way if, instead of a prayer, I were to lead a room of kindergartners in a blót. And the ACLU (or even the FFRF!) would happily represent those Christians because yeah; that’s totally a breach of the establishment clause.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

Then why did the first President of the United States pray publicly? Why did he declare a national day of prayer? Why did the Founding Fathers say they wanted Christianity encouraged and to flourish?

Lexical Cannibal

Lots of reasons, but mostly for the same reason that they signed a document that declared all men created equal, but were then all like “nah man, slavery is cool.” Organizing a set of rules, even a well-made, thoroughly thought through set of rules, doesn’t mean you’ve thought them all the way through to their logical conclusion.

In the case of this one specifically though, because despite their general sentiment against establishing a state religion, further judicial review would find that they hadn’t fully accounted for the establishment of de facto state religions. Loopholes like that are fine as long as everyone gets along and they’re not inconveniencing you, but it’s only a matter of time before a loophole like that lets through the same old problems and we’re back where we started. Even though congress “made no law,” when the state starts favoring one faith or belief over another it comes with many, if not all of the same negative effects of a state religion (mostly for the people who don’t follow it).

Also, you keep coming back to that statement about the founding fathers wanting Christianity to flourish. 1) I’m going to need a source on that, if you’re going to keep leaning on it. Specifically sources that indicate that was the general consensus and not just a thing that one guy said that one time. 2) That’s not what the constitution implies.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

George Washington:

“My ears hear with pleasure the other matters you mention. Congress will
be glad to hear them too. You do well to wish to learn our arts and
ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will
make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do
every thing they can to assist you in this wise intention; and to tie
the knot of friendship and union so fast, that nothing shall ever be
able to loose it.

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political
prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports….Let it
simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for
life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are
the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with
caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without
religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education
on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to
expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious
principle.”

Samuel Adams:

“We have this day [Fourth of July] restored the Sovereign to
whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in Heaven, and from the
rising to the setting of the sun, let His Kingdom come.”

United States Congress 1782:

“Congress passed this resolution: “The Congress of the United
States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.”

“We recognize no sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus.”

– John Adams and John Hancock

“The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity.” – John Adams

“The general principles on which the fathers achieved
independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow
that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of
Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and
attributes of God.”

– John Adams

“The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it
connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government
with the principles of Christianity.”

– John Adams

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

– John Adams

Lexical Cannibal

Just a heads up; at least three of those quotes are bunk and you probably don’t want to use them anymore (specifically, your congressional order, “No King but Jesus,” and “Highest glory of the American Revolution. In order, they are a partial misquote that misrepresents the context, an outright fabrication, and a common misatribution from a contemporary writer) and a fourth has some selective editing that arguably changes the meaning (“our constitution was made…”).

Regardless, what you’ve got here is a list of quotes that prove that several founding fathers were big fans of Christianity, but essentially nothing that would imply that they specifically designed their government to ensure it, and only it, would flourish. In fact, despite their naked dislike of it, they made no steps to stem the tide of atheism at all in the constitution. That would seem to imply something else to me; namely that despite their dislike of atheistic or non-christian beliefs (or more accurately, the dislike of some founding fathers), they still went out of their way to design a system of government that would treat them with utmost equality. I say “out of their way” because it would have been excessively easy to include a quick clause about Christianity in general, non-sectarian terms and cinch Jesus’ place among the checks and balances. Note, however, that they didn’t. Essentially, see point 2: That’s not what the constitution implies.

As a counter of form though, here’s some Founding Father quotations specifically against religion in government, Christian or otherwise.

“We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition… In this enlightened Age and in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man’s religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States.”
~George Washington, letter to the members of the New Church in Baltimore, January 27, 1793

“The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.”
~John Adams, “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” 1787-1788

“Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.”
~John Adams, “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” (1787-88)

“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”
~Thomas Jefferson, letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, 1802

“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is error alone that needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.”
~Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Horatio Spofford, 1814

“The civil government functions with complete success by the total separation of the Church from the State.”
~James Madison, 1819, Writings, 8:432, quoted from Gene Garman, “Essays In Addition to America’s Real Religion”

“The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”
~1797 Treaty of Tripoli signed by John Adams

<blockquote “Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”
~Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814,

“Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person’s life, freedom of religion affects every individual.

State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the “wall of separation between church and state,” therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.”
~Thomas Jefferson: in a speech to the Virginia Baptists, 1808

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

You’ve used bogus quotes, or manipulated quotes (see the use of ellipsis in one of them) that are only found on atheist sites.

This is a cut-and-paste job from the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, because I can’t link here. It refers specifically to what you’ve done here:

This is how bogus quotes are born

ByAnna Berkes

Posted in: A Summary View

Last
September, I received a question from someone looking for a Jefferson
letter titled, “The Value of Constitutions.” Jefferson didn’t usually
bother to give his letters titles, so this was a bit puzzling. I
finally figured out that this letter had been published in a volume edited by Edward Dumbauld,
chapter 4 of which was titled, “The Value of Constitutions.” It seemed
pretty obvious that somewhere along the way, someone had quoted from
the letter and attached the chapter title in such a way that people
assumed that it was the title of the letter. Whoopsies.

That was kind of amusing, and a relatively
straightforward thing to untangle. But later we dealt with a question
that proved to be the same general phenomenon, in a rather more
pernicious form. This February, someone emailed me about this
quotation: “Loading up the nation with debt and leaving it for the
following generations to pay is morally irresponsible. Excessive debt
is a means by which governments oppress the people and waste their
substance. No nation has a right to contract debt for periods longer
than the majority contracting it can expect to live.” Apparently it
had appeared in the patron’s local paper and she immediately smelled a
rat, so to speak – and rightly so. This quotation comes from Eyler
Robert Coates’ very excellent collection of Jefferson quotes on politics
and government, hosted by UVA, and is actually Coates’ introductory summary of this particular section of the site
– it expresses Jefferson’s opinions as evidenced by his letters, but is
not a direct quotation of Jefferson. This morning I saw this same
thing again – someone quoted Jefferson in a comment on a letter to the editor of the Delaware, Pennsylvania Daily Times as saying, “Because
religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every
person’s life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious
institutions that use government power in support of themselves and
force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine
all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion
tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to
corruption within religion itself. Erecting the ‘wall of separation
between church and state’ therefore, is absolutely essential in a free
society. ” Sure enough, it’s another Coates summary. Gah!

But just when I feel like banging my head
against the nearest wall with the sheer frustration of battling against
what often seems like an overwhelming ocean of bogus quotations, I find
some sign that I’m not the only one who cares about getting this all
right. Here’s a Mr. Allison who is on to the whole Coates-Quotes problem,
and has managed to find sources for questionable Jefferson quotations
of which I was heretofore unaware. Perhaps we should deputize him.

Craig Reynolds

“why did the first President of the United States pray publicly?” If you’re relying on Weems, you’re dead wrong in this claim of a public display of prayerfulness. It was also contemporaneously noted that Washington stood up during certain periods of community prayer in church services while all other participants bowed heads or knelt – David L. Holmes, “The Faiths of the Founding Fathers”.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

Actually, records of Washington publicly praying during government events are readily and copiously available. He also declared a national day of prayer and fasting.

Ambulance Chaser

Then you should be pleased that that’s not happening here.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

You know that it is. That’s why you and your fellow atheists have your shorts in a wad.

meamsane

We are ruled by the whims of men, not the rule of law.

Amos Moses

“Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants.” ~ William Penn

Of course the judge would tell me it doesn’t matter ,,,,, it would be completely irrelevant to the matter at hand ……. why would I even say that to a judge in court ???????? You really make no sense at all.

Amos Moses

So what you quoted is a lie ….. you do have masters ………. the judge is your master ………. lie proven to be a lie …..

Why would I even say that to a judge? I know what the judge’s reply would be…

Me: “Judge, you are not my master.”
Judge: “Yes, I know that. I never claimed to be your master, so what’s your point?”
Me: “Oh… well never mind then … Amos Moses told me that would incite you somehow.”
Judge: “Amos Moses apparently needs psychiatric intervention.”
Me: “Yes, I agree.”

Or do you imagine that exchange playing out differently somehow? If so, you’ve clearly never even been in a courtroom in this country.

Not breaking the law doesn’t make the judge, nor the laws themselves, my master. Ultimately, I choose whether I break the law or not. If it suits my needs, and does no harm to others, I break the law all the time: exceeding the speed limit, for example, or jaywalking.

The world isn’t as binary as you wish it to be. Try adding some nuance to your outlook, and the world will make a lot more sense to you.

Amos Moses

ok ….. so i heard lawless ….. you are a law unto yourself …. got it ….

That doesn’t even make sense… Laws are made by men (and women), so your statement is contradictory (much like your bible).

Guzzman

The Supreme Court settled this issue long ago – public schools cannot inject religious exercises such as prayer into school-sponsored events. Doing so represents an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion. The school wisely corrected its mistake and thereby avoided a costly lawsuit.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

The Supreme Court ruled atheism a religion, so it seems they are pushing a religion down everyone’s throats – atheism.

Rookheight

Removing prayer is not a promotion of atheism. The prayer was not replaced by an assertion that no gods exist, or anything like it. It was just removed.

You’re also wrong that the Supreme Court “ruled atheism a religion,” but atheism is indeed provided equal protection under the law. But that’s irrelevant because, as I said, removing Christian promotion is not the same as promoting atheism.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

Prayer was removed BECAUSE of atheism. Atheism is the religion of choice right now. It’ll probably get replaced by Islam though and then let’s see how atheists cry for Christianity to come back.

Torcaso v. Watkins
“Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief
in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others.”

“The Seventh Judicial Circuit of the Court of Appeals of the United States held that atheism is a religion.”

Kaufman v. McCaughtry

“Atheism is [the inmate’s] religion, and
the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it
expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being,”

The 2nd quote is from John Calvert, a lawyer and intelligent design proponent, not one of the judges, so his commentary is completely irrelevant and warrants no merit nor consideration.

Kaufman v. McCaughtry: Does not declare that atheism is a religion, just that it takes a stance on religion. Read the whole decision, don’t just cherry-pick soundbites out of context, and you’ll see that your position is not supported.

“While at Waupun, Kaufman submitted an official form titled “Request for New Religious Practice,” in which he asked to form an inmate group interested in humanism, atheism, and free speaking. The group would work “[t]o stimulate and promote Freedom of Thought and inquiry concerning religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals and practices[, and to] educate and provide information concerning religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals, and practices.””

You lose again, Guest.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

You are incorrect on all counts. The first decision put atheism in the grouping along with secular humanism, etc. Read the entire ruling. The second decision specifically said that atheism is a religion. I gave you a direct quote from the judge. The judge also referred back to the original 1961 ruling and quoted from there.

You guys don’t have a leg to stand on with this one. It’s clear that the courts have ruled atheism is a religion. The best you can do is try to fight that in court, but the fact remains that this has been a court ruling since 1961.

But you don’t attribute either quote, you simply place them side by side, referencing a court case, implying they both came from the same source. I’m not making anything up, just calling you out on this deceptive practice of yours. You did it to be deceptive, and you were caught, you didn’t think I’d actually look it up and call you on it. Just admit it, liar.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

You clearly cannot read, and so you blame others for your shortcomings.

uninvitedguest

As usual

Rookheight

Prayer was removed because of secularism—keeping the government out of the religion discussion altogether. The absence of religion is not the promotion of atheism, no matter how many times you keep insisting it is.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

Your problem is with the Supreme Court. Take it up with them.

Rookheight

Actually, your problem is with the Supreme Court. You seem to think that all Establishment Clause jurisprudence is wrong, since the Court has repeatedly halted government endorsement of religion and has never said that doing so somehow advances the “religion” of atheism.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

I gave you an exact quote. Take it up with the Supreme Court, you religious extremist.

Rookheight

You gave a quote, but don’t understand what it means. We’ve been trying to explain it to you…

Guzzman

Impervious to contradicting facts or reason, we now reach the point with Guest where the personal attacks begin – been there, suffered that. Had this been Charisma News, all of our comments would have been deleted by now.

Bob Johnson

If Guest’s analysis of the 2005 Kaufman case was correct, you would think that there would be 11 years worth of case law clearly stopping FFRF. Instead we have school districts agreeing based on a simple letter of complaint.

Guzzman

Excellent point, and I have mentioned this to Guest before regarding similar issues – if FFRF’s interpretation is so off-base, why is it that the offenders almost always take corrective action?

Lexical Cannibal

In case you haven’t picked it up yet, you’re wasting your time with guest. His usual MO is to cherry-pick statements, misrepresent those statements per his needs, and make inferences about your ability to comprehend when you call him on it. He is apparently incapable of admitting fault on even his most inconsequential mistakes.

I classify him as “for exercise only.”

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

A quote isn’t something vague, Guzz. You just don’t like the judge’s ruling – that atheism is a religion.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

It’s not my analysis. 2 court rulings, lots of articles about it, including criteria set out by atheists.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

I haven’t made a personal attack. I merely quoted the judge’s ruling that atheism is a religion.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

Oh the irony! 🙂

uninvitedguest

Exactly

Cady555

No. Prayer was removed because it violated constitutional protections of freedom of religion. I expect Jews, Hindus and Muslims also objected to their 5 and 6 year old children being taught to pray to the Christian god.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

It was removed because atheists are shoving their religion down everyone else’s throats.

uninvitedguest

Rubbish

Cady555

That’s rich. Preventing Christians from shoving their religion down someone else’s throat by leading all kindergartners in prayer to their specific god is the antithesis of pushing one’s religious views on others.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

Why can’t children pray or be prayed for? Why are you so offended at the thought of little children being blessed?

Cady555

Children can pray all they want.

People acting with government authority cannot tell children which god to pray to, or which religious rituals to perform.

You would not want a Muslim teacher directing your child to pray to Allah, right? Why are you so “offended” by teachers telling your child to ignore the religious instruction you give your child? Huh?

The Founding Fathers did pray with government authority and declare national days of prayer and fasting. Were they out of bounds? Think before you answer.

Cady555

Wow. That is one strange definition of pushing atheism down other people’s throats.

“Teachers should let every child pray, or not, as they want without telling any child to pray, or how to pray or who to pray to.”

Wow. Those atheists sure are pushy.

They are so unlike those tolerant Christians who lead an entire school, including protestants, catholics, jews, muslims, hindus, buddhists and atheists, in purely protestant style prayer to the protestant god with no regard to whether the children want to participate in protestant religious ritual.

Simply amazing.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

You would have a problem with George Washington then, who led the nation in prayer. And with John Adams. And Abraham Lincoln. Are you sure you’re in the right country?

Cady555

Yes. I’m in the country where, according to the Constitution, I am free from anyone using government authority to tell me or my children which religious rituals to perform.

So unless Washington, Adams, and Lincoln have been folded and stapled into the. Constitution, I will continue to abide by the Constitution of the United States of America and expect my children’s teachers to do likewise.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

Exactly! No one in the government can force you to worship a particular way, including atheism worship, so stop pushing it on everyone.

Cady555

Let’s see. On one side we have teachers leading every kindergartner in the school in prayer to their one god declaring this one belief to be good. And on the other side we have teachers not leading children in prayer to their god or any other, and making no comment on the religious instruction these kids received from their parents.

Explain to me again which one is pushing their religious beliefs.

Guzzman

No, the Supreme Court never “ruled atheism a religion.” What they stated was that non-religious viewpoints have the full protection of the First Amendment: “The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.” Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 104 (1968); Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1, 15—16 (1947); Wallace v. Jaffree, supra, at 53.)

The non-religious are also covered by non-discrimination laws. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, RELIGION, national origin, and sex. The Justice Department has a very broad definition of religion when it comes to the Civil Rights Act, and even includes “OR A LACK THEREOF”, which clearly encompasses the non-religious.

Atheism is a religious viewpoint that is safeguarded under constitutional and civil rights laws. That means government cannot lawfully favor or disfavor atheism, religion, non-religion, or any religious viewpoint for that matter.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

“Atheism is [the inmate’s] religion, and
the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it
expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being,” the 7th Circuit Court
of Appeals said.”

You have completely misconstrued what the courts have said. The case was Kaufman v Mccaughtry, from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that a prison inmate’s religious freedom includes allowing atheists to conduct study groups, just as religious prisoners are allowed to do.

That case references other Court opinions that give atheism [“nonreligion”] the same protection as religion, so they may be regarded as equivalent with respect to an individual’s freedom — but of course that does not at all mean that atheism is a religion.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

Actually, I quoted the courts.

Rookheight

You misspelled “misinterpreted.”

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

Lame comeback. You don’t like the ruling, take it up with the courts.

Guzzman

You don’t even understand the meaning of what you are quoting. In Kaufman v Mccaughtry, all the court said was that for First Amendment purposes, atheists and other nonreligious groups have the same legal rights and protections as religious groups:

“It is undisputed that other religious groups are permitted to meet at Kaufman’s prison, and the defendants have advanced no secular reason why the security concerns they cited as a reason to deny his request for an atheist group do not apply equally to gatherings of Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or Wiccan inmates.”

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

Sure I do, and the quote I gave you was so specific. It states that atheism is a religion.

Anthony_Nonamous

Please try and apply this sweeping generalization outside of the context of prisoner’s rights cases and let me know how that goes.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

It doesn’t matter for whom the decision was made other than the fact that he was an atheist. The issue is atheism, which is a religion.

Bob Johnson

Only to the same extent that a corporation is a person.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

That doesn’t even make sense, Bob. 🙂

Bob Johnson

google “corporate personhood”

You will find that the courts using the 14th amendment have extended the definition of “person” to apply to corporations – just as the courts have extended “religion” to include secular humanism, buddhism, atheism and other non-deity philosophies.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

So what? That doesn’t change a thing about this particular case.

uninvitedguest

Actually it does.

Amos Moses

yeah …. because Dred Scott only applies to blacks in Minnesota ……

Anthony_Nonamous

Dredd Scott decided a constitutional question. Why don’t you take your world-class legal interpretation skills, sleuth up precisely what law was at issue when the 7th Circuit made that decision about why it mattered what this prisoner’s “religion” was, and try to figure out for legal purposes, what the difference is.

If your answer is, “There isn’t one,” then you’re either being dishonest to other, dishonest with yourself, or are simply too stupid to tell the difference, or actively trolling.

Amos Moses

mmmmmmm …….. No ………. that is all just ad hominem ………. try again ……….

Anthony_Nonamous

Nah. I’m good, thanks. You can’t fix willfully ignorant.

Amos Moses

at least you know yourself for what you are ……….

Craig Reynolds

“Atheism is a religious viewpoint ” …. more accurately, “atheism is a viewpoint regarding religion …” Else the clause plainly implies that atheism IS a religion. Words, words, words …..

Guzzman

I’m merely using the term “religious viewpoint” the way the courts use it. Similar to “religious speech”, a religious viewpoint can favor or disfavor religion. An atheistic religious viewpoint might be: There is no logical, scientific, or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god or the supernatural. How does that religious viewpoint imply “atheism IS a religion”?

A3Kr0n

Which ruling is that? I must have missed it.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

Torcaso v. Watkins

Even atheist Michael Ruse said “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”

A3Kr0n

Seriously? Evolution is a scientific theory, nothing more.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

No it isn’t. It doesn’t meet the criteria of science. It’s just a fairy tale belief system.

uninvitedguest

You are thinking of christianity

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

So then why is so much science based on the Bible, like Pupin’s, Newton’s, Faraday’s, Damadian’s, etc.?

Craig Reynolds

The theory of evolution “doesn’t meet the criteria of science.” And with statement the monumental fail of “Guest” to undertand even the meaning of simple words is shown to underpin his continually baseless arguments.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

Why don’t you prove otherwise then? (Hint: you can’t because it hasn’t been done. Even evolutionists admit that.)

Craig Reynolds

State the accepted definition of “theory” as it applies in the sciences and mathematics, then enumerate the ways the theory of evolution “doesn’t meet the criteria of science.” I await your reply.

Fairy tales aren’t used in science. Check out Newton’s, Maury’s, Pupin’s, and Faraday’s writings (to name just a few) to see how the Bible inspired their life changing science.

Jolanda Tiellemans

So teaching math, history, science, biology, reading and such is pushing atheism down everyone’s throats then? If you have a problem with that put your kids in a religious school, where they all can learn about how your God created the world. Religion has no place in a public school.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

Atheism has nothing to do with real education. Atheism is merely a religious based upon someone’s personal belief system. It is not rooted in history, science, or logic. The Bible is. The great men (and women) of science often credit the Bible for their inspiration. I haven’t heard atheism inspire anyone to do anything but kill.

TheBottomline4This

It always cracks me up when someone who doesn’t believe in something, in this case God, complains and forces others to stop what they have been doing up until the one who doesn’t believe forces their own belief..
If what you don’t believe in doesn’t really exist, then just keep your mouth shut and let those who do believe do what they want. But no, you want to force those who do believe to bow to your unbelief.
Silly Atheists.

Rookheight

“Keep your mouth shut and let those who do believe do what they want” will not fly when the government is telling five-year-old public school students to participate in religious rituals. The kids can do whatever they want—no one is asking the school to make them profess their atheism—but the government has to stay out of it. That’s all we’re saying.

TheBottomline4This

Yet you are probably fine with the “gov’t” allowing things in schools like teaching about abortions, allowing trans to used whatever bathroom they “feel” they want to, etc. Right?

Rookheight

Teaching about abortions has nothing to do with religion, but everything to do with reality, so I am all for it. Allowing all students to use a bathroom that corresponds to their gender is just common sense and also has nothing to do with religion.

The fact that your religion, or anyone else’s, happens to object to these things is irrelevant. If your religion objected to teaching girls to read, co-ed literature classes would still be religiously neutral.

Amos Moses

“Teaching about abortions has nothing to do with religion”

yeah ….. no …. i guess you do not know to much about “religious practices” …… “child sacrifice” ….. very big to many religions ……… and hardly “religiously neutral” …………

“Allowing all students to use a bathroom that corresponds to their gender is just common sense and also has nothing to do with religion.”

except it promotes confusion of what reality is ……. but it seems that is part and parcel of the government agenda ……

Ambulance Chaser

Your argument would be a lot more relevant and therefore more useful if you actually addressed the issue at hand rather than trying to play Hypocrisy Gotcha.

Pointing out hypocrisy may be a fun way to score some quick, cheap points, but it isn’t an argument for or against a position. It’s just a version of ad hominem.

Bob Johnson

So, since you probably do not believe in Buddhism’s Nirvana, you will have no problem with kindergarten students reciting the Mahayana sutras.

Tangent002

The Constitution is specifically designed to prevent the hegemony of the majority.

A3Kr0n

Kindergarten graduation ceremony? Every educator in this country should know by now prayers in a public school are illegal.

Amos Moses

i think the real idiocy here is a “kindergarten graduation ceremony” ………. just more snowflake “i am so important” garbage …………

TheBottomline4This

ikr? It’s more for the adults than the kids. I’ve asked some kids before that were a bit older about their kindergarten graduation and they didn’t really recall much other than what they’d been told.

Rookheight

All the more reason not to inject religious indoctrination into the ceremonies.

God makes me happy 🙂 If it had not been for the Lord I would have taken my life about thirty years ago. I only get sad that people are doing all they can to hurt Christians and to prevent Children from learning about God. And letting them to choose to believe or reject.I will keep you in my Prayers.

God makes you happy? Apparently not, you said you were sad earlier. And no, no one is trying to hurt Christians or to prevent children from learning about your god, we’re just reminding you that is what church is for, not public schools. So, yes, let them choose to believe or reject, but in the appropriate place and time, not in public schools.

Oh, and don’t waste your effort on praying for me. Studies have already shown that prayer doesn’t work. Prayer is just a way for you to feel better without actually doing anything that requires real effort. Do something constructive instead, like volunteering to help the homeless, or tutor students that are struggling in their academic studies. You’ll be a lot happier doing that instead of praying.

It’s not sad for the children at all. Their parents can still take them to church, no one is stopping them.

And please, no, don’t pray for me. Do something useful, I implore you. Volunteer, educate, don’t be so idle… Prayer is just a way for you to feel better without actually doing anything that requires real effort.

LadyInChrist♥BlessedBeTheLord

One day you will understand. But until that day I will Pray for you. I have added your username to my book of people I pray for.

I already understand… doing something useful is hard. It’s easier to just wish things were going your way than to actually take action and make things happen. No wonder you’re so sad… I’ll do something more useful than prayer in your name, I’ll donate even more money to American Atheists, The Humanist Society, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

LadyInChrist♥BlessedBeTheLord

Put me down all you want it will not change my mind about praying for you.

Now you’re just being spiteful, I don’t think your god would approve (I’m pretty sure it plays into one of the 7 Deadly Sins). Also, why do you keep capitalizing “Praying” like that?

LadyInChrist♥BlessedBeTheLord

If I was to be “spiteful” to you. I would say to the Lord my God, to let you have what you desire…… A life without Him. But that is not my prayer. One of my prayer for you is that God in His timing will open your eyes,ears,understanding and your heart. Another one is for God to show you His Love for you in a way you can understand. And for to show you that I am not your enemy.

Proverbs 6:16-19
There are six things the Lords hates, seven that are detestable to Him
1) haughty eyes, 2) a lying tongue, 3) hands that shed innocent blood,
4) a heart that devises wicked schemes, 5) feet that are quick to rush into evil, 6) a false witness who pour out lies and 7) a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.

How ever this list is not what most people understand as the seven deadly sins.

According to Pope Gregory the Great in the 6th century, the seven deadly sins are as follows: pride,envy,gluttony,lust,anger,greed and sloth. Although these are undeniably sins, they are never given the description of the “seven deadly sins” in the Bible.

Praise be to God, that through Jesus Christ all of our sins, including the seven deadly sins can be forgiven. Mathew 26:28 Acts 10: 43 Ephesians 1:7
God Loves you. He loved you enough to send His Son for you.

I was referring to you being spiteful, not specifically the act of praying for me, just your spiteful (a combo of pride and wrath) nature.

Also, according to your own bible, you really should just keep quiet:

“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing.”
— 1 Timothy 2:11-15

LadyInChrist♥BlessedBeTheLord

In Church I should be quiet. And I am. You and I are not in Church. I am a Christian Woman. You are an Atheist. There fore you are not one of the Brethren of Christ.
John 16: 21
A woman when she is in travil hath sorrow because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world.

Timothy 2: 13-13 Adam was formed first, then Eve, and Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Eve sinned by listening to this foren intruder and was deceived in disobeying, but Adam listened to his wife willingly disobeyed.

Romans 5: 12
Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for all have sinned.

It’s not about having the last word, it’s about correcting your misconceptions. But go ahead, keep talking to yourself in hopes that it will change something in the world… but it won’t. Be well.

Stupid Atheist

I’m certain our devout friends would be equally supportive of their children being prayed over by a Muslim Imam, Voodoo Shaman, or Satanic Priestess, no…?

Guest254

Before denying the existence of God or His Son Jesus(who was in the beginning The Word and was made flesh), have you read the entire Holy Bible?

uninvitedguest

Yes

Guest254

What was responsible for Jesus’ death?

Craig Reynolds

The team writing a damn good suspense novel.

uninvitedguest

He never existed.

Guest254

According to the Holy Bible, He did. All questions are in response to the Holy Bible. Stay on topic.

uninvitedguest

Im on topic. Studied bible for years. Dont believe a word of it.

Rookheight

Yep. I have read it cover-to-cover as an adult and it only makes me more thankful that I wasn’t indoctrinated when I was too young to realize how ridiculous it is.

Guest254

What and who was responsible for Jesus’ death?

Rookheight

Jesus is a character in a fictional book. Other characters in that book were responsible for his death, most notably the antagonist villain Yahweh.

Guest254

According to the Holy Bible Jesus the Son of God was killed by unbelief.

The question was purposed to see if one truly read th e Holy Bible cover to cover.

I would get my understanding of the complete subject matter before debating.

Rookheight

It sounds like you have already decided that the bible is more than it is, which is a book written by Middle Eastern men, so we’re not going to get very far in a debate. If you go into the discussion assuming the book’s assertions have anything to do with reality, you have no talking points to offer to nonbelievers.

Guest254

I asked if you’ve read the Holy Bible cover to cover, I only asserted what the Holy Bible states.

So you haven’t read it cover to cover.

Look at your responses if you want to check on assertions.

Guest254

If you’re going to debate just make sure you know fully what you’re debating.

Guest254

I assume that your lineage has been in America since the creation of time.

Bob Johnson

So you do not believe that the death of Jesus, the Christ, was Yahweh’s plan for the redemption of man?

Guest254

Did not state what Jesus was killed for, what was responsible for Jesus’ death?

Jesus’ blood being shed for the atonement of sin is in the Holy Bible.

So if you are a sinner, yes you are in need of Jesus’ blood. If you’re not a sinner then you are already righteous.

Guest254

Jesus was responsible for His own death. All things were created by Him for Him. That is in the Holy Bible as well

Reason2012

So in other words you clearly have not read it.

Rookheight

I have read it, and the character Jesus shows up in Act 2. After his childhood there’s a large gap of time in the plot before the story picks up just before he’s executed. That is, unless you’ve read the non-canonical books of the bible, which I also have. In the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, for instance, Jesus uses his magic to blind his neighbors, and also casts a death curse on a child. Quite the young Voldemort.

Reason2012

No, you clearly haven’t. You can’t even answer the question, avoiding it twice now, which proves it.
Take care..

Rookheight

I didn’t avoid any questions, Two were asked and I answered them straightaway. Yes I have read the bible, and in it the character Jesus was killed by the villain Yahweh, who sent his son/himself there knowing ahead of time that he would be tortured and killed, even though Yahweh could have intervened at any point.

You, on the other hand, are apparently just stomping your feet and insisting that I must not know what I’m talking about because I haven’t adopted your confirmation-bias-ridden interpretation of this forgettable book..

Reason2012

How “ridiculous” it is will be our judge. If it was really a lie meant to deceive, nothing so “ridiculous” would have been left in. Common sense.
The fact it was left in is further testimony towards it’s truth and is one more reason why we’ll be without excuse when we face Him.

Rookheight

When you’ve convinced yourself that something being ridiculous is evidence that it’s true, you need to stop and re-assess. Somewhere along the line you got very mixed up and didn’t notice.

Reason2012

No, something being ridiculous is evidence you’re kidding yourself into thinking it was made up to fool people. You seem to think those who are out to deceive would do the opposite in their attempt to do so.

Rookheight

I never said it was written to fool people. For whatever reason it was written, the vast majority of believers were fooled by adults in their lives that this book is something more than just a book written by fallible humans. The nonsensical and contradictory parts of the book only confirm that.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..

No law was made forcing them to pray, so no violation of the establishment clause has taken place.

But, to claim it’s ILLEGAL for a schools’ population to want to pray IS a violation of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law … prohibiting the free exercise thereof..

So for them to claim it’s ILLEGAL to do so IS a violation and they need to be sued instead.

They are using lies and money to attack Christianity and everyone’s folding instead of standing up to their bigotry and perverting of the First Amendment. Then we wonder why the blessings of God continue to be removed? We let God be removed, what do you expect?

Cady555

Every student may pray. In order to protect the rights of students, Government employees cannot use their authority to tell students to pray or which god to pray to.

Get Breaking Christian News in Your Inbox!

Sign Me Up! Top Daily Top Weekly

Christian News Headlines

Keep your site fresh and your visitors coming back by featuring Christian News Network's top news stories on your site. Learn more →

Connect With Us:

Learn More

About Christian News Network

Christian News Network provides up-to-date news and information affecting the body of Christ worldwide from an uncompromising Biblical worldview. Our objective is to present the news with the word of God as our lens, and to bring to light what is hid in the darkness. Learn more →